, territorial conflicts, environmental crises that contribute to the largest refugee crisis since world war ii. my view is that we need to improve and speed the screening techniques. the american people need to be satisfied about the efficacy and accuracy of those screening tests. i have proposed a number of performs, three in particular. expanding the p3 program which gives resettlement applicants with u.s. families the ability to skip the referrals from the unhcr and apply directly to the resettlement support center. second, improving the timing and security of medical and security screenings to ensure that applicants or their entire

families do not have their checks expire, forcing them to redo many of those screenings, when individual parts of the test expire while they're waiting for other parts to be completed. and third, keeping families updated about their status. frequently a large family's resettlement will be delayed because a single family member is waiting to be approved. those are common sense straightforward methods of reforming the screening process so that it takes weeks, not years to reach conclusion. and i think they are doable. they may require more resources. where the u.s. congress should be involved. i will be sending a letter within a few days, detailing those proposals. is large audience here testimony to the importance of this subject. again, not just because of our standing or image in the world,

but our self-image. our self-worth, our view of ourselves as a nation. my feeling is that the american people still believe that we are the nation of the statue of liberty. that we have arms open to people that want to come here for opportunity and freedom, and to escape persecution and harm a broad. -- harm abroad. mr. chairman, if there is no objection, i like to enter into the record some of the evidence of that widespread support. republicanom former and democratic officials, including ambassadors robert ford and former bush administration robert wolfowitz, calling for the u.s. to accept 100,000 syrian refugees. a letter from 18 mayors, including chicago, mayor rahm emanuel, asking the obama

administration to resettle syrian refugees in their cities because, according -- i'm quoting, "refugees make our communities stronger." thank you. question,ust ask a your permission i am going beyond my time, mr. bartlett, and anyone else who wants to answer -- if the p3 program were expanded to settlement up when it's -- settlement applicants, with that have any negative impact on our national security? would you be willing to consider such an expansion?

ms. strack: senator, that is something we would certainly take under advisement and discuss amongst ourselves. there have historically been some problems with the priority 3 program in terms of false claims of family relationships. you may be aware we suspended the program for a period of time until we were able to reintroduce integrity features. with a proposed expansion of the eligibility categories, we would want to think about it very carefully through that lens, based on that experience, to make sure that in expanding it that we have the appropriate safeguards. mention, of your three points that you addressed earlier, i think on the second piece about improving the timing of security checks and addressing the issue of having an expire, that has traditionally been a challenge for all of us.

but we do have some recent improvements. i think we could share with you and a brief your staff. we have introduced some automation just this past summer with the agencies that do the vetting. we believe that is going to address specifically through the institution of recurrent vetting, going to help us ameliorate that problem when security checks expire. i think we will have some positive news for you on that score. >> anyone else wants to address that question? some changesat have been admitted. -- have been implemented. i would be interested not only in your planes, but evidence that they are in fact having an effect. the credibility of the entire refugee resettlement program hinges on effective screening and one of the principal

measures of effectiveness is timeliness. can, in effect, be self-fulfilling expectations when those tests for screenings expire. and they should expire after a period of time. but we need to be done more expeditiously. i think the chairman for his patients -- i thank the chairman for his patience. i have a lot more questions that i will submit for the record. thank you. >> i thank you panel. i would like to walk through some of the details on how you do your work. as presently constructed, i don't believe were able to do what you are suggesting today. and the costs are much greater than you suggest, mr. kerry, in your statement.

we have billions of dollars in incurred from the programs that refugees are entitled to receive. while we had 18 democratic mayors asking president obama to send more syrian refugees to their cities, homelessness in the u.s. has doubled since the last recession. we have a financial crisis too. every new dollar spent on these refugees will essentially be borrowed. because it's near expenditure, and we don't have new revenue to pay for it. the mayor of new york, mayor deblasio called on more refugees, but originally said this was a european problem. i don't think the europeans help us with the central american problem. we have countries like brazil and argentina, that are taking any refugees. -- that aren't taking any refugees. new york city hall announced

they would spend $1 billion more on the next four years focusing on homelessness in new york. somebody needs to be talking about the american people. what we want to do. we want to help. we are helping. we are doing more financially than any other country in the world to help deal with this christ -- crisis. i don't accept the idea that we are not doing our fair share. and europe should be picking up the largest share of the problem, frankly. i don't see it there. a good policy is that people should be stay as close to home as possible. our overriding policy goal should be to create stability in syria and libya and yemen and iraq so people can go home. we have allowed that to get away from us. we can criticize our policymakers were allowing this

dangerous humanitarian disaster to occur. i would say, i think we have to ask those questions and about who we are going to serve in whose interests we are trying to serve. mr. emrich, can you name a single computer database outside very small but significantly valuable intelligence databases for syria that you run a check against? does syria have any that you can access? emrich: the government of syria does not, no sir. sen. session: they are the ones that keep records. we keep them in the u.s., those who are arrested and so forth. but you don't have access to any

, if they exist in syria? emrich: as ms. strack mentioned, in most cases these individuals do have documents from syria. ways ofve various identifying those documents, as she described, our officers are trained in fraud detection. we would be happy to brief you in another setting-- sen. session: i'm asking you to talk to the american people. the american people are asking you a question. i read what the fbi director said. he said there is no database. he suggests there is no way that they can get sufficient for a substantial

majority of these persons. aren't you left to looking at whatever documents they produce, and conducting an interview? can assure the american people that we have a robust series of screening the widethat encompass range of u.s. government resources that involve u.s. law enforcement agencies and intelligence community members, that these processes and these screening members are constantly reviewed. that we are continuously looking at ways to improve these. that they incorporate both biometric and biographic checks. they incorporate an in-depth interview with a trained u.s. government officer. they involve an additional interview, inspection rather, when a person presents himself or herself at the u.s. port of entry. may--rack: senator, if i sen. session: let me just say

this. i have been in law enforcement 15 years. i know how the national crime information center works. i know how you run back on checks. -- ground checks. there's no way you can do back on checks of any significant. i'm sure we have some intelligent data on a number of people throughout the region. if you get a hat on that, i am sure you would reject this. but you have only a miniscule number of people that have been identified, i'm sure, in that fashion. i don't believe you can tell us with any certainty that you have an ability to conduct an efficient background check. lets say you have no information. lets say there's a question -- do you have any ability to send an investigator to iraq to check if the person actually lived on this street, actually had the job he claims to have had? ms. strack: sir, if i may-- sen. session: i was talking to

mr. emrich. emrich: we do not have the ability to send an investigator to syria. we have resources to verify various elements of testimony and story. sen. session: well i'm sure there are things you could do. but you're telling us you can do that for a majority of the people that you interviewed? for a have the ability majority of the people you interview to have independent data of value to help identify them? mr. emrich: in many cases we are able to find independent data. sen. session: in many cases, i asked a majority. mr. emrich: i cannot quantify. sen. session: 20% or 80%? can you tell us? is it less than 20 or more than 80? mr. emrich: i can't give you a number. is, yousion: the reason

don't have the ability. i wish you did, but you don't. ms. strack? ms. strack: mr. emrich cover the point i was going to cover, sir. >> mr. chair, if i could. appoint you made on a -- a point you made on the u.s. response abilities versus those of other countries in the world. i know you mentioned brazil is not taking refugees. i wanted to set the record straight that brazil,, in fact has stepped up quite large in terms of the syrian crisis. they have done 80 military and visa program -- a humanitarian visa program and allowed syrians to come to brazil. not technically as rapidly's, but from the -- not technically as refugees. there are 30 countries involved in resettlement of syrians. you are right, europe is taking people because people are moving across land borders. but there are countries like new

zealand, australia, and canada also playing a significant role. thank you. sen. session: according to the information on, the u.s. is six times more migrants than all of latin american countries combined. do you dispute that? mr. bartlett: i'm only talking about refugees at this point, sir. i also see numbers that indicate -- how long ago was that, that they agreed to step up? mr. bartlett: it's been within the last year. they have done quite a lot. sen. session: we have done a lot for a long time. we are very generous and i think the world leader. we are proud of that and want to be a great country for handling refugees. i just believe we need to understand the reality. how much it's going to cost and the danger of admitting those threat to the united

states. ms. strack, there was a number examples of people who have involve themselves in terrorism since they have been in the u.s. theyimes when they come, may not be radicalized, but somehow someway become radicalized. there is no way you can identify that, i don't suppose. sir, we can't predict the future. sen. session: so we know the boston bombers came as refugees. ms. strack: they did not, sir. sen. session: how did they come? ms. strack: i will have to check with my colleagues, but they were not refugees. sen. session: were the parents refugees? ms. strack: i would need to check with other colleagues. sen. session: we have a bosnian refugee along with wife and

relatives charged with donating money, supplies, and smuggled arms to terrorist organizations in syria and iraq. i don't think that is in dispute. amongand his wife were six living in minnesota, illinois, and new york who were charged last week conspiring to provide material support to groups that we consider terrorist organizations. and who's back refugee living in idaho was threatened -- an uzbek refugee was teaching terror recruits how to build a bomb. somali americans in minnesota were charged, seven were charged with trying to join isis. it's not an easy job. there is always risk. we want to be sure you are fully equipped and able to do the best job we can.

i think we should be careful as we go forward and always try to protect the national safety, as you indicate. can any of you tell me how many people have been given refugee status since 2001? how many of them have been identified affiliated with terrorism? well, we have a lot of public records on them. i certainly don't have the full number, that is for sure. there are a lot of things you can spend those fees on. if you use fees to expand dramatically the number of

refugees from syria or other places in the middle east, that does tend to drain the money, does it not, ms. strack, that you would otherwise have for other needs of your agency? ms. strack: yes sir. in order to reprioritize funding, that will come out of other priorities. sen. session: following up on a prior question, mr. bartlett, if we go to 100,000, are you aware of how many of those over the 75,000 this year -- 25,000 more -- how many of those would be and/or the thsyria region? mr. bartlett: we don't have a projection. what it would look like when we bring 100,000 in -- we traditionally respond to the humanitarian crisis of the time.

so in the last five years, we have settled a number of burmese, bhutanese, iraqis. some of those who have worked for must, now increasingly syrians and congolese. we've had a big program built on the congolese coming out of the democratic republic of the congo who have been basically in asylum for many years. again, those will be the populations. they will shift according to peace, for example, existing, or conditions existing to return home. then those populations decline. one would predict that probably syria and iraq would continue to be large. sen. session: secretary kerry indicated some sort of consultation, he told us the figure was 75,000 for next year, then 85 we have heard.

he warned us in might be substantially more. 100,000 would certainly be a lot. well within what he suggested he might recommend. we don't get fees from those, do we? immigrant that has to pay fees to help subsidize these kinds of procedures. ms. strack: that is correct, sir, there is no fee to apply for refugee status. sen. session: the washington --st said that mrs. tsarnaevand came as refugees, and brought to their children with them. ms. strack: i would need to

check with my colleagues, sir. sen. session: what about parole programs? is that under the homeland security section? ms. strack: it actually is a shared responsibility with the dissolution of the former immigration nationality service into the immigration operational division at the departed of homeland security. customs and border protection have parole authority. sen. sessions: dhs is looking at a case-by-case program for which is aor parole, program that has some difficulties. i'm not sure the kind of thing that ought to be done with regard to syria. but apparently it is being considered. is it still being considered,

using a parole programs to deal with the syrian problem? uscisrack: sir, the received a letter signed by 70 members of congress asking the administration to consider what we have called the syrian reunification family program. at the time there was a model based on a cuban family reunification program. under the design of the cuban program, family members in the u.s. who are eligible to apply for green cards, form i130. they are eligible for that application and have approved beneficiaries, but their family members were actually able to take advantage of that and come to the u.s. because of the limits on family-based immigration every year. the program in cuba was to take those people who were eligible for green cards and let them come to the u.s. and wait in lieu of waiting in cuba.

the letter that we received recommended that the administration consider a similar sort of program. this would be a relative in the u.s. who would petition on behalf of of a close relative. if that beneficiary was a syrianm, the recommendation was we consider granting parole to that syrian beneficiary. time, thee, -- at the and ministration it made the decision not to do the program at that point in time. as the conditions have continued to deteriorate, and as we have had requests from other stakeholders to take another look at that, my leadership has agreed they would take another look at that program. it doesn't mean the decision will change, but they have agreed to consider it. sen. sessions: you have a request, and i'm sure you should consider it. i think it's a problem weight -- problematic way to do business. we are increasing the number of refugees from syria. i think that is the appropriate

weight to ultimately and directly deal with this. the parole system was never designed to be used in this fashion. with regard to resettlement, does not fall within your area? >> yes it does. sen. sessions: and general, i believe you had some sort of consultation with communities about a desire oto resettle a number of people within your community. what is your policy on that, and can you assure us that any community will receive direct flow of refugees would be consulted before this happens? >> i will defer to my colleagues

at the department of state who handle the admissions and placement part of the program. department haste irresponsible of the for the -- has a response ability for placement of refugees in the communities. the communities -- the responsibilities are longer-term in terms of immigration adjustment. again, we do consult very closely at the community level. put the responsibility on the partner in the community. -- 320 affiliates or so. we require them to do consultation each quarter of the year. consultations include elected officials, city councils as well as mayor, it includes other people providing services, so schools, health clinics, other

medical service providers, law enforcement, as well as volunteer groups that are supporting refugees. we want to talk with the broad community, not just the people who are involved exactly in the resettlement program. but also people who are affected by it. the consultation takes place quarterly. that consultation includes iraq is in the from the state government -- includes a representative from the state government. someone who has comedic edition with the governor's office. those consultations are fed back to the national headquarters and then to the state department. what i can assure you is, and i was just in twin falls idaho two weeks ago, that we want to listen to every voice in the community. not everybody is a supporter of refugees. not everyone is a supporter of syria resettlement. we want all those voices to be taken into account and see how we can respond.

overwhelmingly we find the majority of citizens appreciate the program and supported. we want to find a way to make that work for everybody. sen. sessions: very good. very majorng about a undertaking. a heritage foundation study has reported that 10,000 refugees of our lifetime will cost the u.s. dollars.4 billion me, $6.5 billion for 10,000 people. because most of the people are going to struggle in lower incomes. there is a cost on that. then you go to 30,000. 70,000, 100,000.

that a substantial cost. 100,000, overther 30 years, you have increased a very large number of people, statistically speaking. they will be drawing more benefits than they bring in. it puts stress on medicare, the food stamps program, and on social security. in medicare will pay into the program reasonably if they work. but like most people, they will pay in less than they take out. that is why those programs are on such a crisis path today. huge financial costs. then the difficulty of being applicantseen the effectively. if you need more help, mr. emri ch or ms. strack, i hope you will ask for it. i think it's impossible, even with more staff, to get the

information. were not going to be able, as some people might think, to go out to the i believe the american people are generous and kind and decent and a one a contribute to helping solve this crisis. we are, in a significant degree. we are entitled to have our officials protect our interest, the people's interests. that is what i think we try to do today. i do not blame any of you for the difficult job you have but i do think we need to ask ourselves how much instability occurred in the well, we need to ask ourselves how we could more positively ashore that stability

is returned during -- to that area of the world and to try to create a circumstance and financially help in a humanitarian way people that are really hurting. so, thank you for your service to your country. we appreciate that. open ford will stay one week and you are dismissed. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

annual documentary competition is an opportunity for students to think critically of issues of national importance by creating a five minute documentary which the can express those views. it is important for students to get involved because it gives them the platform to have their voices heard on issues that are important to them, so they can

express those views by creating a documentary. range of ventures. the most important aspect for every documentary we get is going to be content. created bye winners just using a cell phone a we have others that are created using more high-tech equipment. is really the content that matters and shines through in these documentaries. the risk on's from students has been great. had issues on the importance on many issues, ranging from education, the economy, the environment, showing a variety of issues. >> having more water in the river would have many positive impacts to serve the community and businesses. we have definitely come to the consensus that humans cannot run without food. >> prior to the education act or , children with

disabilities were not given the opportunity for an education >> this year's theme is wrote to the white house, what is the most important issue you want candidates to discuss. on into the campaign season, there are many different candidates discussing several issues. one of the key requirement is to include some c-span footage. this footage should complement and further their point of view and not dominate the video. it is a great way for them to include more information that furthers their point. >> the first deal today is the first -- also known as -- >> we have all heard the jokes about school meals and certainly growing up, the burnt fish sticks and mystery made tacos. >> there is a role that the government plays. it is especially vital for students with disabilities. >> teachers and students can go

to our webpage. find teacher tips, rubrics to help them incorporated into their classroom, more information and waste tovideos contact us if they have any further questions. the deadline for this year's january 20, 2016. announcer: today, a gunman opened fire at a college in oregon. the president spoke to the press about the shooting earlier this evening. his comments are about 10 minutes. >> there has been another mass

shooting in america, this time a community college in oregon. there are more american families, moms, dads, children, whose lives have been changed forever. another community stunned with grief and and parents across the country who are scared because they know it might have been their families or their children. but in roseburg, oregon, there are really good people there. i want to thank all the first responders whose bravery saved some lives today. federal law enforcement has been on the scene and offering a supporting role for as long as they need. we will learn about the victims. young men and women who were studying and working hard, eyes

set on the future, their dreams of what they could make of their lives and america will wrap with everyone in our prayers and our love. but as i said, just a months ago, and i said a few months before that and i said each time we see each one of these mass shootings, our thoughts and prayers are not enough. it's not enough. it does not capture, the heartache and grief and anger that we should feel and it does nothing to prevent this carnage from being inflicted someplace in america.

next week or a couple of months from now. we don't know yet know why this individual did what he did. hfer and it's fair to say that anybody who does this has a sickness in their minds. regardless of what they think their motivations may be. but we are not the only country on earth that has people with mental illnesses who want to do harm to other people. we are the only advanced country on earth that sees these kinds of mass shootings every few months. earlier this year, i answered a question and saying that the united states of america is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient

commonsense gun-safety laws even in the face of repeated mass killings. and later that day, there was a mass shooting in lafayette, louisiana, that day. somehow, this has become routine. the reporting is routine. my response here at this podium ends up being routine. the conversation in the aftermath of it has become numb to this. we talked about this after columbine and blacksburgs, tucson, aurora, charleston. it cannot be this easy for somebody who wants to inflict harm on other people who get his

or her hands on a gun. and what's become routine is the response of those who are opposed to any kind of commonsense gun resolution. the press is being cranked up. we need more guns, they'll argue. fewer gun safety laws. does anybody really believe that? there are scores of responsible gun owners in this country. they know that's not true. we know because of the polling that says the majority of americans says we should change these laws including the responsible law-abiding gun owners.

there is a gun owner in every how can you make the argument that more guns will make us safer? we know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. so the notion that gun laws don't work or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens or criminals to get guns, isn't borne out by the evidence. we know other countries in response to one mass shooting have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. friends of ours, allies of ours, great britain, australia, countries like ours, so we know there are ways to prevent it.

and of course, what is also routine is that somebody, somewhere will comment and say, obama politicized this issue. well, this is something we should politicize. it is common to the body politic. i would ask news organization, because i won't put these ta facts forward, tally up the number of americans that have been killed by terrorist attacks and the number of americans who have been killed by gun violence. this won't be information coming from me but coming from you. we spend over a trillion dollars and pass countless laws to

preventing terrorist attacks on our soil and rightfully so. and yet, we have a congress that explicitly blocks from collecting data on how we could reduce gun deaths. how can that be? this is a political choice that we make. to allow this to happen every few months in america. we collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones because of our inaction. when americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines diss a asters. when americans are killed in hurricanes and tornadoes, we work to make it safer.

when roads are unsafe, we fix them, to reduce auto fatalities. we have seat belt laws because we know it save lives. the notion that are gun violence is somehow different, that our freedom and our constitution prohibit any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon, when there are law-abiding gun owners across the country who can hunt and protect their families and do everything they do under such regulations?

it doesn't make sense. so, tonight as those of us who are lucky enough to hug our kids a little closer are thinking about the families who aren't so fortunate. i'd ask the american people to think about our government to change these laws and to save laws. and to let young people grow up. and that will require a change of politics on this issue and will require that the american people, individually, whether you are a democrat or a republican or an independent, when i decide to vote for somebody, are making a determination as to whether this

cause of continuing deaths of innocent people, should be a factor in your decision. if you think this is a problem, then you should expect your elected first to reflect your views. and i would lick particularly ask america's gun owners, who are using those guns properly, safely, to hunt, for sport, for protecting their families, to think about whether your views are being properly represented by the organization that that suggests they are speaking for you.

and each time this happens, i'm going to bring this up. each time this happens, i'm going to say that we can actually do something about it, but we are going to have to change ourl laws. and this is not something i can do by miss. i have to have a congress and state legislatures and governors who are willing to work with me on this. i hope and pray that i don't have to come out again during my tenure as president to offer my condolences to families in these circumstances. but based on my experience as president, i can't guarantee that. and that's terrible to say.

and it can change. may god bless the memories of those who were killed today. may he bring comfort to their families and courage to the injured as they fight their way back. in and may he give us the strength to come together and find the courage to change. thank you. the highlightstonight,

from the washington ideas conference. first, elizabeth warren. then, cathy mcmorris rodgers. former vice president hall gore on climate change. later, loretta lynch. on the next washington journal, we look for the tax policy proposal that republican presidential candidates. then, the findings of the few hispanic center study on immigration trends. we will talk to the offer of that report. it'd is discussion about american household finances. washington journal is live with your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets at 7:00 eastern span. a signature feature

of book to the is our coverage of book fairs and festivals from across the country with top nonfiction authors. in october, the southern festival of books in nashville. after that, we are live from austin for the texas book festival. the end of the month, or two that the wisconsin book festival in madison. back on the east coast, the boston book festival. in november, we are in oregon for word stock. followed by the national book awards from new york city. that is a few of the fairs chairs and festivals this fall on c-span twos book tv. >> at this year's washington ideas for them, senator elizabeth warren sat down for an interview with jake tapper. this is 20 minutes.

[applause] jake: good to see you. i know she needs no introduction, but i have been told i have to give her one anyway. [laughter] let me just say, elizabeth warren is a first-term democratic senator from massachusetts. the consumer financial protection bureau was her idea. she chaired the congressional oversight panel of tarp, was a professor at harvard, author of the new york times bestseller "a fighting chance." anything i'm missing? thanks so much for joining us. really appreciate it. senator warren: thank you. jake: to start out with an idea, you and former speaker newt gingrich have joined to take on the issue -- senator warren: think about that. [laughter] jake: to take on the charge of

increasing funding for the national institutes of health. ie national institutes of health. how will this odd couple, if you permit me saying so, how did this odd couple coming to fruition? how did you meet him? senator warren: what started the idea behind it, what is one of the principal functions of government? to think about our future over a long arc. not just until next week or even the next funding cycle, but what does it look like overall? i will give you bad news. the fastest-growing age group in america is people over 100. then over 90, then over 80. ucs pattern. we are getting older. not you and me, but in general as a country. here's another one. alzheimer's, one of the pencil age-related -- principal age-related diseases. $225year, we will spend billion just in care for people

with all summers. that is care. without the ability to delay onset by even one day. without the ability to promise the hope that we can get any kind of amelioration of what is happening in this terrible disease as it moves forward. -- jake: your earpiece is off your ear. senator warren: right in the middle of this. so, how much are we spending on research? we are on the edge of being able to do more in brain science and brain research. billionmuch of the $226 are we spending on research? less than 0.2%. thehe last, since 2003, national institutes of health have had their effective budget, their purchasing power, cut by 25%. when you think about how we build a future, research is a

big part of how we build a future. right now, the united states congress is cutting back on nih, as if it is a step child to our budget and our future. speaker gingrich, i think i lost this. jake: you lost it again. senator warren: that was fun. speaker gingrich is someone who gets it. he wrote a piece in the "wall street journal," about how we should be thinking of investing in brain science research, medical research. it should not even be part, it's an investment in the future. so i read this and think of the phone and said, hi, this is bigger, this is a live -- mr. speaker, this is elizabeth warren, want to work together? he said, absolutely. we are going to keep working on this, because this is about building a sustainable future

for all of america, and research is one of the pieces right at the heart of that. jake: obviously we are in the throes of a presidential campaign. i would be remiss if i didn't mention that. i don't know if you picked that up in the newspapers. you said you will endorse a democratic candidate in the primaries. senator warren: i am pretty sure it's not going to be one of the republicans. [laughter] i have seen enough. jake: you are one of many female democratic senators to sign a letter a few years ago urging secretary clinton to run. should that be seen as an endorsement in itself? senator warren: she's running, along with other people, and they are getting their ideas out there, and that's what should happen during this part of the season. jake: so you just wanted her to run? senator warren: i want everyone who wants to run for president to get out there, put their ideas out there, talk about their ideas with the american people. that's how it should be. that's how democracy is supposed

to work. jake: when i spoke with senator bernie sanders recently, i asked him where he and senator clinton differed. he mentioned a number of areas, including reestablishing glass-steagall, extending social security by lifting the cap on taxable income, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. i think you and bernie sanders align fairly closely on all the major issues. you decidecide, when who to endorse, is it just going to be about who you agree with the most, or do you take into consideration other things, such as who has the better chance of being the nominee or winning in november? senator warren: at this moment, i don't know because i am not there. what i do know is that people are out talking about these key ideas, and that's exactly the right thing to do. we should be talking about

glass-steagall. we should be talking about the role the major financial institutions play, not just in this economy, but in the political sphere here in washington. we should be talking about minimum wage. we should be talking about college debt. youhe way, i know where want to put the focus. but i also want to put the focus on, this is a time where you can see a sharper difference between the democrats and the republicans. the republicans have gone in such a different direction on what they think are the issues we should be talking about, and where they come out on but i think our critical issues, particularly economic issues. the idea that we need to get a budget together, that there's a lot to negotiate around that budget, and what's the first thing the republicans say they have to do? defund planned parenthood. it seems to me, that is so out of touch with reality, so out of

touch with what it means to govern this country, that they that they need to do something so they can move women back to 1955, that that is first on their agenda. [applause] they are just wrong on that. jake: i want to talk about planned parenthood in his second. -- in a second. senator warren: good. jake: before i entirely drop the subject, do you disagree with the idea that you and bernie sanders seem to be more closely aligned on issues than with other democrats running for president? senator warren: you want to ask that he different way? jake: that's kind of my job. [laughter] senator warren: and kind of my job is to get out there and keep pushing these issues. i will say this. bernie goes out and fight for what he believes in. he fights on the heart on these issues, and i think he has done an enormous service by pushing them forward into the agenda. i think that secretary clinton

has also been pushing forward issues into the agenda that are really important. for example, she just endorsed senator baldwin's bill to try to slow down the revolving door here in washington. that is really important. bless. at least we have some democrats out there talking about the things that matter to the american people. talking about how we build a real future, and it makes me proud to be a democrat. jake: do you see the democratic party moving in a more progressive direction than in the 1990's? senator warren: you would probably need a pundit to wind all that up. but i have to say, i think we are. we're getting in touch with what really matters. part of the reason is the urgency. watch was happening to america's middle class, america's working families, america's poor. let me do one quick fact on

this. from 1935 to 1980 -- dang it. [laughter] one more try. from 1935 to 1980, coming out of the great depression, what do we do? we put restraints on wall street and start investing on things, infrastructure, research. we build america's great middle class. everybody outside the top 10%, 90%, gets 70% of all wage growth in this country. gdp is going up. and families across the spectrum are doing better. trickle-down economics hits in the 1980's, and you just watch this reverse. to 2012, the latest time for which we have data, the 90%, everyone outside the 10%, you know how much they got? they got 0% of income growth.

growth, as gdp was going up, 100% of income growth went to the top 10% in america. and that has become clear now to us, that has become clear, even in the bubble of washington. and that's what democrats are talking about. they are talking about, what are the things we need to do to build a future, not just for a thin slice of the top, but to build a future for all americans. that's what it is supposed to be about. jake: what do you make of the fact that two of the leading republican presidential candidates, donald trump and jeb bush, both indoors closing the loophole when it comes to -- endorse closing the loophole when it comes to hedge fund managers, the carried interest loophole iago senator warren: it means even when your ears are stuffed with money, a

little sound comes through. that's what is happening here. yeah, billionaires should not be paying taxes at a lower rate than teachers and firefighters. ped that has even see through. stunner. [laughter] let's talk about planned parenthood, because you brought it up. senator warren: is that human reason you want to talk about it? jake: no, obviously it is in the news. there was a hearing earlier this week. obviously your position is supporting planned parenthood, well-established. the reason planned parenthood was purportedly in front of the congressional hearing was because of these videotapes of planned parenthood officials saying and doing things that even planned parenthood questions in terms of the glibness. is there nothing on the videotape you saw that bothers you at all? senator warren: remember what we were debating on the floor of

the united states senate. that was defunding planned parenthood. it is not, let's do a review of videotapes. it was defunding planned parenthood. we have to start by remembering what that means. 2.7 million people get their health care from planned parenthood every year. one in every five women in america sometime in her life will get health care from planned parenthood. planned parenthood, what does it mostly due? 97% of what planned parenthood does it cancer screenings, screenings for std's, birth control. , all of thenthood planned parenthood clinics are in places where there is limited access to health care. ,or many people, for many women it is their only health care provider, sometimes their principal health care provider. and the republicans say the

first issue that we have got to discuss, the number one thing, everything else can go forward or not go forward on the budget, the first thing we have got to do is defund planned parenthood. that means defunding health care for women. and make no mistake, what this is really about is about women's access to abortion. and even though not one federal dollar goes to pay for abortions through planned parenthood, the republicans want to find one more way to make it harder, to make it impossible for a woman who is facing one of the most difficult decisions of her life, they want to find a way to make it harder on her to get the health care he needs. all i can say is, we have been in that world before. when i talk about 1955, i'm talking about a world where women died, a world where women

committed suicide rather than go forward with a pregnancy they could not handle. and what the republicans are saying is that they want to go back. i want to make it clear, we are not going back. not now, not ever. [applause] jake: two that they are not loing a strong -- straw pol here. senator warren: we are doing a straw poll. difficult the 2016 elections. the republicans want to run on shutting down women's access to cancer screening and shutting down women's access to birth control, and shutting down toen's access non-government-paid for abortions. they will have a real fight on their hands. let them do it. [applause] you have been a longtime

advocate for financial reform. , therepast, you have have been words between you and then-senator joe biden. you pointed out that his home state of delaware is one where a lot of banks are headquartered. you recently met with him. what can you tell us about that meeting. what can you tell us about where he is on these issues that matter a great deal to you? senator warren: well, we had a long lunch, and talked about a whole range of policy issues. but principally, about how we will rebuild america's middle class. about how we create opportunities for working families. how we create opportunities for poor families. is aoth of us see this principal role of government. it's about the investments we need to make, and the investments we need to make together. we also talked about the need for a cop on the beat on wall street.

we talked about support for the consumer financial protection bureau, and it was a good conversation. who caresis somebody about america and cares about america's families, and i think that has been true for a long time. that's what the conversation was about. jake: you have disagreed very sharply. senator warren: you bet. it was over bankruptcy laws that the credit card companies wanted to tighten so they could squeeze more profits out of working families, and senator biden was on one side in the fight, and i was on the other. you better believe, i did not fight back. jake: are you still on opposite sides of the issues? senator warren: of that issue? yeah. jake: speaking of the consumer financial protection bureau, there is a moving congress to replace the director with a five-person bipartisan panel.

some of the democrats in the house that have expressed support for it a it will be protection for if a republican is ever in the white house. senator warren: that's what the president of the american bankers association came out with yesterday. he said he is so worried about this consumer agency that forced the largest financial institutions in the country to return more than $10 billion to families they cheated. he is so worried about keeping cy up and strong, that he wants to make sure there is a five person commission like on the sec, because -- fcc, because that will really keep the cfpb strong. jake: you don't buy it. senator warren: do i look d umb? jake: no. [laughter] just in case you were wondering what my answer was. on the record, you don't look

dumb. you have also been accused this week of leading ideological purges. that's from the conservative wall street journal editorial page. obviously you were not the biggest fan of the idea of larry summers becoming fed chair. you blocked antonio weiss from becoming undersecretary for domestic finance, and recently you objected to a nonresident scholar from brookings presenting a paper in which he did not fully disclose, according to brookings rules, where the money came from. are you leaving an ideological purge? senator warren: let's talk about the situation at brookings. this is personal. wasublished a study that way out of line with the findings from other independently funded research. jake: about a specific rule. senator warren: the rule is whether or not there ought to be

what's called a conflict of interest rule. so that investment companies cannot recommend products to consumers that are really great for the agent recommending them but really lousy for the consumers. the department of labor put out a rule. the research generally shows loseamerican families about $17 billion a year to the industry and certain players in the industry who favor themselves, the broker over the customer. there's a lot of other research about this. then he puts out a study that totally goes the other way. then it gets criticism in academic circles for the methodology. so he came in front of a committee that i am on to testify, and there's just a line in the testimony about research supported by, and it identifies

one of the companies that stands potentially to lose money if the department of labor rule goes through, and very much like the outcome that he addressed. so i just followed up. i did questions for the record to ask for more information about where the money had come from, and we found out a couple of things. he personally got $38,000 for this. the company he works for got more than $70,000 for this. it,the company that funded they were the sole funder, and they got to look at, advise, review the work as it was a work in progress. so, that raises some real questions about the independence of the research. [laughter] so, i wrote a letter to the department of labor, because this research has been cited a

lot by the industry. the industry has really been counting on this piece of research. so i wrote a letter to the department of labor asking brookings about it. and that's where it went from there. jake: that's all the time we have. senator elizabeth warren, everybody. defund planned parenthood. this is 15 minutes. congresswoman cathy mcmorris rodgers. i like the walkout music. you are the chair of the house republican conference.

just to be clear, so everybody understands what that means, you are the one who is supposed to bring all the house republicans together. you convene the meetings. you actually -- rep. mcmorris-rodgers: the 247 -- >> how's that going? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: republicans from every corner of the country. bringing us together. speaker boehner's announcement on friday has sent shockwaves throughout capitol hill and throughout the country. >> let's be clear. the announcement came at your meeting. rep. mcmorris-rodgers: it was not :00 a.m., friday morning, a regular gathering of the house republicans. week, this meeting each and i had just invited speaker boehner to come to the podium and give remarks when i was slipped a note that said, the speaker is going to be announcing his retirement. [laughter] >> so you had no indication? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: no.

what does this mean? i listened to him announce his move -- news. it was unexpected. i really thought we were in a better place. the pope had just been to capitol hill. the first time for the pope to visit and address a joint session of congress. such a positive day for congress, and then, then obviously the speaker decided later on that evening, on thursday evening, that, you know what, it might be time for me to go. >> it was striking. the news broke. there was the family values for him that was going -- forum going on with the presidential candidates, including marco rubio, ted cruz. they were celebrating this news, as if this was some great victory. in the case of ted cruz, like

john boehner had been vanquished. and he is the republican speaker of the house. how do you assess his legacy? so many other republicans have been so critical, and frankly ungracious since he left. you worked closely with him. what is his legacy? what kind of speaker was he? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: in my role, i have had the opportunity to work very closely with speaker boehner, and through the years, i really believed he was the right man at the right time to be leading us. it didn't mean, obviously, that every member agreed with every decision. there was a lot of people suggesting speaker boehner should have made different decisions, could have gotten something done, gotten more than what he did. what i saw in speaker boehner was someone who was trustworthy. i think, day in and day out, that is why he remained speaker as long as he did. the members really did trust him when he told them something.

they knew that he was not playing games. the second part was that he made decisions based upon what he thought was good and right for america, at the end of the day. always it i may not agree with every decision, but you have to respect someone who is willing to make the tough decisions at times. maybe not something that even went all that well with the republican party as such. someone who was really trying to do, day in and day out, what was best for the country and what was going to improve people's lives all across this country. >> he is not stepping down until the end of the month. one of his last acts here was to bring up a bill yesterday to fund the government, just through december 11. i was amazed to watch that vote yesterday. you voted yes, against the government shutdown. 151 house republicans voted yesterday to shut down the government. conference when

you have that many were willing to say, just because we are not getting everything we want, we are not willing to pass a bill that would keep the lights on? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: for those republicans who voted against the continuing resolution to keep the government open, i really believe it was more a message to the senate and a message to the president. there's a lot of frustration, that we have not been doing our basic job, our responsibility of getting a budget in place. that is pretty fundamental. when every year the federal government needs to get a budget in place, that's how you keep the government running an operating, and there were high hopes, high expectations that in january of this year the republicans, especially having a republican partner in the senate. >> republican senate, republican house. rep. mcmorris-rodgers: we got the budget resolution passed earlier than ever and went to work on the appropriations bill. the house, we really were, this

was a high priority for us to get these appropriations bills done, because that is the way we assert the power of the purse. that's the way that we as legislators really make clear when we do not agree with what the executive branch may be doing. if we want to address funding levels. if we want to not fund certain programs. that's where we get to really assert our power. there was a very disappointing -- it was very frustrating, that not one of those bills passed the senate. >> this was a striking boat. again -- this was a striking vote. again, it's only to keep the government temporarily running so you can negotiate a longer-term deal. continuingwould have government funding as it has been for ages, including funding for planned parenthood -- rep. mcmorris-rodgers: it did not include any funding for planned parenthood.

>> it did not cut off any funding, right? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: the money has already been spent. >> because it did not affirmatively cut off planned parenthood, you had a large majority of republicans saying that we would rather see the government shut down? yes.oted leadership voted yes. but most of your fellow republicans voted no. rep. mcmorris-rodgers: there is a big frustration with status quo on capitol hill. just think that this vote underscores the frustration with the status quo. and it is across the board. i think we are seeing that in the presidential -- from both republicans and democrats. this country wants to see congress function. they want us to make decisions on what they think is best for the people we represent. a whole bunch of people just see

the arguing of the dysfunction, and they are just sick of it. it is reflected in the members, to find. >> now it becomes kevin mccarthy's problem. you assume, like i do, he will be the next speaker. rep. mcmorris-rodgers: yes. >> good luck, kevin mccarthy. i understood it was john boehner who was singing after he made the decision, not kevin mccarthy. mccarthy is under intense criticism because of what he said about the benghazi committee. he suggested the benghazi committee has been responsible for bringing down hillary clinton's poll numbers, that people see her as "untrustable," was his word. [laughter] first of all, what do you make of what he said about that? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: i believe hillary' is poll numbers really reflect people who do not view her as being trustworthy. i think there's a lot of questions related to whether or

not she has been forthright, whether she has cooperated. obviously, we, it has been difficult to get the e-mails, etc., but i do believe that the work we are doing in the benghazi committee is very important. it's important that we know what happened that evening in benghazi. we have a responsibility to do that. you know, we do not, we have not yet had important questions answered. four americans died. that the appropriate legislation get the answers. i don't care who is in the white house. i don't care who is the secretary of state. on behalf of the american people, this is where representative government, where the legislative branch has a responsibility to hold the administration accountable and to ask the appropriate questions. that is what the benghazi committee is seeking to do.

trey gowdy is an honorable man. he is a former prosecutor. who knows how to do about it. he has done it in a way, i would encourage you to look at the way he approached this. he has approached it in a way where he is asking questions, and he has not made a political. >> so were you disappointed when you heard mccarthy say what he said? why did he say what he said? he seems to be saying, we did this and her poll numbers came down. he seemed to say the committee was designed to bring down hillary clinton. rep. mcmorris-rodgers: from day one, this committee and trey gowdy have made every effort to make this about getting answers, as far as what happened that evening. and we have a responsibility to do that. >> what's going to happen when we get to december, and now it's mccarthy's problem, and you have to come up with a more enduring

solution for doing all that congress still has to do, including the basic function of keeping the government-funded -- how are you going to get agreement among this group you have to convene together every week, when they couldn't even agree on a temporary funding measure? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: we need to do our jobs. we need to come to the table. we need to negotiate. >> compromise? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: yes. we need to figure out how we can reach some common ground and move forward. i think we recognize, i , it isze that we half to in our best interest to keep this government-funded. yes, we will debate funding levels, we will debate priorities, and republicans will bring certain priorities to the table, democrats will bring certain priorities to the table. but this is regular order,

right? and there's a lot of calls right now for regular order. regular order is when the house produces a product for the senate, and then you come together and figure out how to agree on something to move forward. >> the way you did that last time is paul ryan got together with patty murray, and you were able to come up with a solution to avoid a crisis for two years. but that is expiring. you have the debt ceiling, where we face the possibility of default, and you have this question of how to find the government, with the planned parenthood issue hanging on. you have a large portion of your conference, republicans in the house, who say they would rather shove the government down than see planned parenthood continue to get funding. some say they don't want to raise the debt ceiling, no matter what. how do you deal with that? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: what we are proposing as it relates to planned parenthood, and these videos have raised serious concerns, and it is appropriate we do investigation.

we are going to be launching an investigation. we have been calling for a one-year old on the funding -- hold that would go on the funding to planned parenthood and transferring it to federally qualified clinics, allowing us time to ask some questions. there should not be taxpayer funding used for abortions, and this -- >> which is the current law. rep. mcmorris-rodgers: which is the current law. that is through our investigation, are going to ask those questions and get some clarity. i think people should recognize, that is an appropriate path for us to take, and thoughtful approach to some really, concerning videos that have been released. >> it will be quite a battle. we don't have much time left. i have to ask you about the presidential campaign. i noticed this morning the

current front-runner is still a gentleman from new york named donald trump. what are the chances he is the republican nominee? rep. mcmorris-rodgers: i don't see it happening. donald trump is a great entertainer, and his slogan, make america great, has certainly struck a chord. proud of theery fact we have a very diverse field. it'snk that is, that is, exciting to see the republicans we have. u.s. senators, governors, people from the private sector who have been very successful. i look at where we are as a party, and the republicans, we want to be the party of the future, we want to be the party that is really embracing new ways, challenging the status quo, and addressing outdated models that are not meeting needs. look at these agencies.

look at the veterans administration that is failing our veterans. these are outdated models, and i'm excited about a party that is really, not just on the presidential side, in the house right now. we have the next generation of conservative leadership. we have had two thirds of the republicans in the house elected in the last five years or less. there's been a lot of turnover. there's a lot of new blood. there's people who ran for office because they are really concerned about the direction this country is taking. but it's more fundamental than that. i believe there is a fundamental fear that we are losing our government, that we are losing representative government. when you see so many decisions made outside of congress. being made by the administration, by the executive branch, or by the judicial branch. no matter if you are republican, democrat, independent, you

should believe in the power and decision-making that the long in the legislative -- belongs in the legislative branch. that is the number one priority, to restore trust and confidence in the legislative branch on the half of the people of this country, so if we can do our jobs, we can figure out how to be more effective, restore the trust on capitol hill, i believe that's the best thing we could do for people across this country. >> it will be quite a challenge. thank you very much. minutes. [applause]

james: thank you all for coming. thanks so much to vice president al gore for joining us. he has done a lot of traveling so thanks for making the effort. as i promised yesterday, the vice president has nothing to talk about you might not be expecting. there are things you probably will expect, given his political expertise, the things you know about what he has been doing in the years since by presidency. the nobel peace prize, the two oscars, the two number one bestsellers, other things of that sort. blah, blah, blah as they say. [laughter] i got to immerse myself in these things in an article about what vice president gore has been up to, which will be in "the atlantic" in 10 days. that's what i want to ask you about. i have to cue up the question, because you are not supposed to talk about your achievements in the realm yourself. there's a company called generation investment management

which vicendon, president gore was a cofounder of, the chairman, and it is now reporting what it achieved over the last 10 years, since it started managing money in the global equities market. in 10 years of tunnel around the world -- tumult around the world, the financial crash, everything in europe, everything in china, you can go on and on, the average for all msci global equities in that time was 7%. the average for all large managed funds was 7.7% return. which is barely above, once you remove the fees, what an index fund would have been. the average for generation's may find in the last 10 years, versus the 7% baseline, was 12.1%. that is 500 basis points above what the market has done. of the 200 major

management firms surveyed, generation was the number two in returns in the last 10 years. based on this track record of succeeding in a way financial markets care about most, vice president gore has been going public on what that means. because there's something unusual in the way you have made as much money. what is that? mr. gore: thank you. thanks for inviting me. thanks for the setup. i want to briefly, if i could, thank david bradley and james bennett for guiding this amazing magazine, and walter isaacson, guiding the aspen institute. what you have done is amazing. so, what is unique and different about the news, if you will, that you refer to, is that my partners at generation and i set out 11 years ago, spent the

first year setting this up, set out to invest in a completely different way, by fully integrating environmental factors, social factors, ethical writrs, sustainability large into every part of the investment process. our mission has been to prove the business case that, if inv estors rather than assume that the environment social government factors are more or less extraneous, kind of distractions that will hurt returns if they really pay attention to them, if instead the investment process is designed to fully integrate them into every part of the analysis, and all decision-making, you can enhance returns. we have only had 10 years, and i

learned to knock on wood, whatever this is. there's got to be wood in there somewhere. but 10 years is long enough to get some evidence that there really is a basis for believing that the conventional wisdom in markets about sustainability is wrong, and that fully integrating these factors does not cause a trade of values for value. it does not lead to lesser returns. it can, and if skillfully executed, this process can enhance returns. james: this is a point that really struck me when i was with your colleagues in london. we are used to thinking of socially responsible investing tax, something you do because you can afford to it. you argue it is the right to hire returns. mr. gore: absolutely. in the mainstream investment

marketplace, there is a little bit of a cold stove problem. the famous mark twain story. james: perhaps he would explain it to us. [laughter] in my piecee is a riff about how much vice president gore enjoys explaining things. mr. gore: the , "so let me explain." we may share some of that. a capwain once said that burned by a hot stove won't sit on a hot stove again, but won't sit on a cold one, either. a lot of investors learned from the 1960's and 1970's version of so-called ethical investing in the anti-apartheid years, which they learned that using a negative checklist or a screen hurts returns. when somebody brings of

sustainability in the model they recoiled. investors,ation of of which we would like to believe a generation were leading the way toward a new realization that if you fully integrate these factors, you don't lose returns. you increase returns. research that of tends to support the proposition that we began putting forward. >> i want to ask about the difference your generation can make. a ten-year record. blackrock manages 400 times that much. how do you think a firm like that will make a difference in finance, and the kinds of companies you are investing in, some i have never heard of.

others are mainstream companies. how do you think you are going to make a difference in finance? mr. gore: first of all in markets when a new model is proven know very sufficient time results, it better attracts imitators, interest from those who want to do better , and as you said, it is a darwinian process. ,hen a new model is successful people pay attention to that. we hope that they will. there is some evidence that they are. you manage risk better for one thing. you unlock investment opportunities better. we have use the spectrum analysis. you explain that to a fair the

-- you explain that fairly well in the piece. it is a simple way of communicating this. the portion of the spectrum you can see with your eyes is tiny but i spent eight years in the white house starting with a cia briefing that collects information from the full spectrum. the resulting picture was more complete. in the same way, what comes across the bloomberg screens and the quarterly reports, and the kinds of reporting that has become standard in the industry is a narrow slice. -- headede country nam the company deal with unemployment? those things turn out to be extremely significant. early on we invested in lord brown -- they were doing

interesting things. then they expanded into north america. our analyst began to suspect the safety coulter and bar mental culture they had had not been extended into north america. long before deepwater horizon because of these concerns they noticed the refinery fire in texas, and a pipeline accident in alaska. we said we have got to get out of this. not too long after that the deepwater horizon event took place. it was avoidable. most conventional analyses did their safety culture, their environmental management. that is not just a feel-good add-on. it is central to the success or failure of a business like that. other kinds of businesses, like financial services, human culture is central.

if you understand more about how they are managing their people, and spreading their values throughout the workforce you were none more than simply looking at these quarterly reports. >> i make a joke about how you climate,f your time on another half on something else. you --lf of your time do what do you anticipate doing on the sustainable capital? be an active to public debater? mr. gore: absolutely. by cofounder and i have been writing a lot of op-ed's in the wall street journal, financial times, etc.. to ave 5% of our profits foundation that is completely focused on sustainable capitalism. hegemon,an ideological

a compound ideology under siege. democracy has been hacked. capitalism is in need of reform, serious reform. the short term that has been moaned by the leaders of the biggest firms in global markets is really hampering the success of capitalism and building value, and reaching its goals. crises that now radiate globally, much more frequently because of the emergence of earth inc., internet connected -- interconnected factors like the failure to measure the impact of negative externalities like pollution, and the depletion of natural resources, positive externalities like the

investment in public goal. financial reports that say gdp has gone up three-and-a-half percent. median income has gone down. pollution has gone up. depletion of resources has gone. inequality has gotten out of control. investmentdearth of in public goods like education and health care. this is true everywhere the dominant version of democratic capitalism is being pursued. in the capitalism part of that we adoptortant that the reforms that more and more people are seeing are greatly needed. >> there is a lot more to say about sustainable capitalism. let me -- mr. gore: one other thing.

i don't want to flatter you publicly. i have been doing this for 10 years. i learned a lot about what i thought i understood from jim's article and i commend it to you. >> thank you very much. we could spend hours or days with your view of the world's climate situation now. if you're spending 3-4 minutes giving us what we should think of us the state of events, despair versus progress versus overviews, what is the on al gore since of the climate? if you juror an analogy to a sporting event, we are behind on the scoreboard. the time is running down. the momentum has shifted. everybody can feel it. there is enough time on the clock to score enough points to

win. i think we are winning. we have just in the last couple of years begun to cross the tipping point. you see with the pope's visit to the united states, china's announcement of a cap and trade system. and in paris we are going to get an agreement in december. a global basis putting 110 million tons of heat trapping pollution into the atmosphere every single day. the cumulative amount of pollution is trapping as much extra heat in the atmosphere as would be released by 400,000 hiroshima class bombs exploding every day. that is a conservative estimate. if the denial lists were able to

pick apart that statistic they would have. most of it goes into the ocean. when a hurricane like the one off the east coast now picks of energy from the warmer oceans, it enters a new category of threat. that happened with superstorm sandy. i was in miami the last three days. there were official meaning in the streets. floodinghave sunny day where the salt water comes out off the storm drains. they are spending $400 million to raise the seawall. these are temporary measures. we have to take action. it represents a collision between the way we have organized civilization and the surprisingly fragile ecological system of the earth, which is a

very thin atmosphere. population,rupled technologies are more powerful and the short-term thinking that is often reflected in our current capitalism, current politics and culture, it is driving this collision. people are awakening to it. i do think that the most theting source of hope is engineers and scientists and business investors have come up curve. stunning cost down pe solar is now cheaper than electricity from coal in lots of places. this has shifted investing in a massive way. >> this is oversimplified. if there was a single thing you would like people listening for you to do or change, what is the next at?

changes important to more like blogs and so forth. it is more important to change the laws. we have to address the crisis. that is another subject. businesses t do pay a lot of attention for those asking. the business community is leading now. it is incredible. we need to restore the vitality of democracy so special interests are not completely in control. so the public interest is lifted up and this is the principal issue where that has to happen. most people who say in this chair over the last day and a half have asked if you're are

going to run for president. there have been a number of senators. mr. gore: are you thinking about it? if you are asking everybody. i would support that. -- a draft al be gore article. considering a draft al gore movement? mr. gore: i have overuse the answer am going to give you. i am a recovering politician. [laughter] the longer i go without he relapsed the less likely one becomes. >> let me ask about the landscape you survey. you had a book called the assault on reason. apply that to the republican field now. you talked about the basement and the democratic discourse.

what do you make of the republican spectacle now? [laughter] mr. gore: it is really something, isn't it? it is astonishing to me. all, here is what i think is happening. i think there is a big wheel turning slowly, and we are now in a phase where our politics have been degraded, democracy has been hacked. that metaphor refers to the operating system being taken over so it no longer works for the owner. the american people are being left out of the equation. why do special interests and the holders of big amounts of money now make all the relevant decisions? here is what i think is the underlying cause. information ecosystem was

formed by the printing press. it had certain characteristics where individuals could enter the public square and exchange ideas. a critical mass may emerge. assembly.reedom of they were than not treated according to a meritocracy of ideas. in the middle of the 20th century, television push the printing press off of center stage. spend 75% oficians money on 32nd tv. is information ecosystem taking crest. individuals can no longer enter easily.

there are gatekeepers that charge rent. networks collect tons of money. who gets then? corporate advertising. political candidates have to spend three quarters of their time begging rich people for money to get into the television square. tot that means is they begin think more about what the big donors want them to do, and less about how they -- the constituents are going to react. this continues to turn. internet-based media are beginning to push television off the center of the stage. recapitulates some of the favorable aspects of the print universe, individuals can get into the conversation more easily.

we see everyday bloggers have taken the time to dig deeply and find out the truth of things, getting other people glomming onto their ideas. if it goes on enough they can have enough power to change the course of the debate. i am optimistic. the most urgent task is to accelerate the migration of democratic forms and principles into the internet age so that individuals can take part again. the wisdom of crowds is a buzz phrase. it is a real saying. it is an important reality in our lives. the reason why the american -- the united states rose to the -- of thethe century country over a century and a half, we make better decisions than any other nation.

now we have begun to make stupid decisions. we invaded iraq because three quarters of us thought that saddam hussein was responsible for the world trade center. we sold 7.5 million subprime mortgages to people who thought the risk was not present because even though they couldn't make a down payment monthly payment, they were locked together and sold into the global market. as soon as people look and see they have no value, we have 21 assets. dollars in we are challenged to make the right decision where that is concerned. mark carney gave an amazing speech which i commend to you about the risk to the global economy inherent in stranded carbon assets. business upon the u.s.

community to look at the opportunities inherent in d --decarbonizing. the global economy was lifted not by roosevelt that by the mobilization of the v fashion. the postwar economic boom was brought about because there was a shared conviction that we needed to do things differently. the entire world moved in the same direction that unlocks that amazing economic dynamism. we are a situation where the conventional tools for lifting ifup, much less recovering we have another downturn in the business cycle, they drop interest rates 54-5%. the traditional tools don't

work. we need an inspiring collective mission to create hundreds of new jobs. we have such a mission. we can save the future of human civilization. >> that sounds like a great place to end. [applause] mr. gore: thank you. >> next attorney general loretta lynch went to the washington adeas forum to talk about great program. she was interviewed by chuck todd of meet the press. this is about 20 minutes. we always want to put elected officials on the couch. here you are.

love this. not that any of you need to -- our newabout attorney general? are you still knew? ms. lynch: no. >> the only lawyer in america representation for being a charming people person. you guys had a big announcement today. help grant program to communities deal with recidivism rates. yes.ynch: i'm delighted to announce today the department of justice is awarding $53 million and what are called second chance grants. this is an important part of the departments work to make sure people coming out of prisons have an opportunity to rebuild

their lives and communities stay safe. they will be aimed at organizations and 45 different jurisdictions focusing on things as varied as father and son interactions, job training, education. many barriers we have seen in the way of people coming out of our prisons to be coming productive citizens again. that is the goal. we are very involved in fundamental fairness. in making sure that people do in fact served time when they need to. how are we going to integrate those people back into our society? >> it is a grant program. that always have the width of the experimental to me. meaning that not every community who needs it is going to get it. is that fair? unfortunately we have limited

dollars. jurisdictions and organizations can apply. we try to look at track records, at their experience where we can find it, actual records of success and reintegrating individuals. the application process is on their website. our office of justice programs is the main body that will be managing these grants. of one me an example community. when i was the u.s. attorney in brooklyn, we had within our district five counties. we had a lot of tremendous progress in crime reduction and safety. we had entrenched pockets in brooklyn and queens. one neighborhood was brownsville. many residents, young people who never leave the neighborhood. except when young men go to

jail. we solve this cycle over and over again. we were involved in reentry programs in that community. it wasn't just the attorney's office, the das office talking to returning offenders about the cost of reoffending. it was providing with educational services, family management services and information on housing, things that are real barriers. those are the programs we are looking to support. anniversarytrina there were studies released. the prisoners that went back to the ninth ward, if their families were there, recidivism was higher than going back to the old neighborhood versus if their family -- if they had nowhere to go and their family relocated to houston or atlanta,

recidivism dropped in half. that to me sounds like the answer, the best evidence i've seen anywhere that the best way to deal with recidivism rates is relocate out of neighborhoods. is that one of the goals? ms. lynch: it is not to remove people from their neighborhoods. there is some interesting research and data coming out of the department of housing. it talks about exactly what you mentioned in a larger sense, that where you live matters. it matters because of your access to services, to education , because of your access to a certain quality of life. post-katrina the ninth ward suffered so tremendously during the storm, after, and even still today that many residents returning were working so hard to get the basics of life and hold it together people would not have had access to that.

individuals who with two different locations or flood into networks of support but were stronger than they would have found in the ninth ward. our goal is to strengthen neighborhoods to support people coming back into them. >> i want to shift gears. criminal justice reform. this today.on lee, they have, their criminal justice reform legislation they are introducing. life sentences under the three strikes would be dropped to 25 years. reduced to 15. for crimes that require 10 year sentences judges would have more discretion. they will include prison programs for rehabilitation, dealing with juveniles, putting